The Old Covenant has been obliterated (Hebrews 8:13).

[Paprika]

I agree with a lot of that.

Okay. Now Romans states that "the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives...likewise, my brothers, you have died to the law..but now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code."

[The Remonstrant]

I don't put great stock in arguments of the form, "All major English Bibles translate Word X wrong. It should be translated in this other way, which happens to support a pet doctrine of mine."

Such was not my "argument" at all, actually. I provided a quotation where an author briefly touched upon the etymology of aionios. That is all.

In any event, I would greatly appreciate it if you would cease casting aspersions upon me and/or my views whenever it appears to suit (or not suit) your particular theological agenda. This is not the first time, RB. Thanks.

[The Remonstrant]

It doesn't mean "for a lifetime" .

Exodus 31:16,
Thus shall the children of Israel observe the Sabbath, to make the Sabbath throughout their generations as an everlasting covenant = "b'rit olam"


Isaiah 24:5, And the land has deceived because of its inhabitants, for they transgressed instructions, infracted statutes, broke the everlasting covenant, "b'rit olam"

I'm afraid much more is to be said regarding these terms. However, I would prefer the discussion to not get buried in an unrelated thread regarding the covenants. I may initiate a thread at some point where I briefly touch upon this subject further.

[RBerman]

Such was not my "argument" at all, actually. I provided a quotation where an author briefly touched upon the etymology of aionios. That is all.

In any event, I would greatly appreciate it if you would cease casting aspersions upon me and/or my views whenever it appears to suit (or not suit) your particular theological agenda. This is not the first time, RB. Thanks.

I was not referring to you or your views, Rem. I was referring to the author that you quoted, and his views.

[RBerman]

Do you regard Gentiles not eating blood in Acts 15 the same as Genesis 9:4 and Leviticus 7:26 under Noahide then Mosaic Law, or something different?

The reasoning may be the same in all three cases, but I do not see Acts 15 as intended to simply restate either Genesis 9 or Leviticus 7.

As it states Gentiles observe the Feast of Tabernacles in the World to Come, would that suggest an extension and even magnification of that Ceremonial Law, rather than obliteration of it?

With Zechariah by itself, yes. In the fuller light of the NT, no.

[The Remonstrant]

I was not referring to you or your views, Rem. I was referring to the author that you quoted, and his views.

Whoops.

Private message time!

[foudroyant]

I don't think the Mosaic Law has been obliterated now, but I think that Jesus implies that it will cease to exist when "heaven and earth pass away". And I would say, borrowing the metaphor in Hebrews, that the Mosaic Law is 'a copy and a shadow' of the heavenly things, and that 'what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.'

NIDNTT: The comment of R. Banks on Matt. 5:17 appears to fit the context much better: "This 'fulfilment' takes place not in the first instance through his suffering and death as some have sought to maintain, but in his teaching and practice, though these, of course, ultimately culminated in the Cross. It is to that ministry that the Law 'prophetically' pointed, and it is only in so far as it has been taken up into that teaching and completely transformed that it lives on" (Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 28, 1975, 242) (3:183, Redemption, C. Brown)

The Mosaic Law is no more.

[RBerman]

Whoops.

Private message time!

I was obviously not as clear as I should have been, which is my fault.

[JohnnyP]

We can transgress against the Law of the Spirit, but we're not supposed to.

To put it this way: are you saying what the Spirit agrees to about not eating blood, etc. in Acts 15, is different from the command against eating blood in Genesis 9 and Leviticus 7, as RBerman suggests?

No, no, no, no, no. The Law of the Spirit doesn't save either. You're conflating two different concepts.

Would you say it's a different concept from...

Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

I'm not assuming. He did use it

I think you are since the term "Jew" wouldn't be used for Samaritan descendants of Israel, but it could be used for Gentile converts to Judaism. Therefore it refers to religion and Torah observance, not simply race or ancestry, although descent from Israel was incidentally the case for most Jews. In the same way as Jews call their father Abraham: not all descended from Abraham are Jews, and not all Jews descended from Abraham. So biblical Jewishness is first and foremost a religious identifier.

Nonsense. He told others not to keep the law, but the elders told him to go do a ritual in the temple, not Paul telling others to go do the ritual.

Context, my friend. He wasn't accused of that in Acts 24 and thus his statement could hardly be regarded as a denial.

In part he was accused of lawbreaking by profaning the Temple in Acts 24:6, and his response in Acts 24:14 was that he believed all things written in the Law -- if you claim he didn't really believe in the Law for Jews, then it seems you have him lying just to save his hide here.

We are not supposed to lie, cheat, or steal because we are under the Spirit which forbids it, and not because we are under Mosaic Law. We are not under Mosaic Law so we don't have to follow what is in it, but we are under the Law of the Spirit which does overlap with the Mosaic Law to some extent.

That goes back to my question about Acts 15 and Leviticus 7 -- if it's the same Law of not eating blood and the same God giving it, why assume they are different Laws which are similar, rather than some of Mosaic Law applied to Gentiles?

That's the sense I get in Woes to Pharisees, that at least among some of them, outward observance didn't match up to their inward feelings about it (where I said, "Much of their attitudes seem to be expressed in hatred of the Law, others, and even God, and observing the Law out of fear").

The reasoning may be the same in all three cases, but I do not see Acts 15 as intended to simply restate either Genesis 9 or Leviticus 7.

With Zechariah by itself, yes. In the fuller light of the NT, no.

I'm not sure I agree to see a reason why not eating blood, observing Feast of Tabernacles, etc. should be regarded as entirely different concepts, rather than some of the same Mosaic Laws as applied to Gentiles, other than to claim the Old Covenant is entirely abolished which gets back to your statements like "If Gentiles were 'coming in' to OT Judaism, then they would be required to keep the OT ceremonial laws too."

I'd need to see more evidence that these are not really some OT ceremonial laws applied to Gentiles, rather than something entirely different.

[RBerman]

I'm not sure I agree to see a reason why not eating blood, observing Feast of Tabernacles, etc. should be regarded as entirely different concepts, rather than some of the same Mosaic Laws as applied to Gentiles, other than to claim the Old Covenant is entirely abolished which gets back to your statements like "If Gentiles were 'coming in' to OT Judaism, then they would be required to keep the OT ceremonial laws too." I'd need to see more evidence that these are not really some OT ceremonial laws applied to Gentiles, rather than something entirely different.

In Acts 15, the Jerusalem Council doesn't explicitly enlighten us as to the rationale for the specific instructions they gave, so there's a bit of speculation going on no matter how we slice it. In 1 Corinthians, when Paul addresses the food issue in a Gentile setting, the basic question is not, "How can you set yourself apart?" (the Jewish ceremonial approach) but rather, "Are you communicating some sort of worship of demons, even if you personally don't believe in those demons?"

[JohnnyP]

In Acts 15, the Jerusalem Council doesn't explicitly enlighten us as to the rationale for the specific instructions they gave, so there's a bit of speculation going on no matter how we slice it. In 1 Corinthians, when Paul addresses the food issue in a Gentile setting, the basic question is not, "How can you set yourself apart?" (the Jewish ceremonial approach) but rather, "Are you communicating some sort of worship of demons, even if you personally don't believe in those demons?"

To veer off the topic perhaps too wildly, apologies: even if Christmas/Easter/etc. traditions really came from idolatry, would you consider that a similar type of situation, as expressed in 1 Corinthians 8 -- where idols are not really being celebrated? And that type of view expresses Freedom of the Law of the Spirit vs. Slavery under the Law of Moses?

I mention this only to try to find some greater middle ground to differentiate between legalism vs. breaking the Law.

[Paprika]

In part he was accused of lawbreaking by profaning the Temple in Acts 24:6, and his response in Acts 24:14 was that he believed all things written in the Law -- if you claim he didn't really believe in the Law for Jews, then it seems you have him lying just to save his hide here.

Yes, he was accused of breaking a law, but not of teaching others to break the law in general.

To put it this way: are you saying what the Spirit agrees to about not eating blood, etc. in Acts 15, is different from the command against eating blood in Genesis 9 and Leviticus 7, as RBerman suggests?...That goes back to my question about Acts 15 and Leviticus 7 -- if it's the same Law of not eating blood and the same God giving it, why assume they are different Laws which are similar, rather than some of Mosaic Law applied to Gentiles?

Though the content is the same, they're given in a different 'system'. It is not that case that there is no similarity between both the laws; there is both a continuity and a discontinuity. Using the language of Hebrews, a 'shadow' will be similar in certain senses but radically different in others from the true object.

You agree with me that the Gentiles do not need to follow the Mosaic Law. What are they under then, if any, and how do you think it relates to the Mosaic Law?

[JohnnyP]

Yes, he was accused of breaking a law, but not of teaching others to break the law in general.

Are you saying these are totally unrelated?

Acts 21:28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.

Acts 24:6 Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, and would have judged according to our law.

Though the content is the same, they're given in a different 'system'. It is not that case that there is no similarity between both the laws; there is both a continuity and a discontinuity. Using the language of Hebrews, a 'shadow' will be similar in certain senses but radically different in others from the true object.

You agree with me that the Gentiles do not need to follow the Mosaic Law. What are they under then, if any, and how do you think it relates to the Mosaic Law?

I think Gentiles are under a "relaxed" Mosaic Law, where if they want to become Jews under the entire Law they can. I don't think Jews have been assimilated and become Gentiles, or that Gentiles magically become Jews, since Jewishness biblically means full Torah observance. Even though both are graffed into the same tree of the New Covenant.

[Paprika]

Are you saying these are totally unrelated?

I'm saying the prima facie context of Paul's statement of defense is the charge brought under him. Whether he is also responding to other charges not brought up in the court is something that you have yet to show.

I think Gentiles are under a "relaxed" Mosaic Law, where if they want to become Jews under the entire Law they can. I don't think Jews have been assimilated and become Gentiles, or that Gentiles magically become Jews, since Jewishness biblically means full Torah observance. Even though both are graffed into the same tree of the New Covenant.

Why are Gentiles under the "relaxed" Mosaic Law, and not under the full law?

In Hebrews Jesus abrogated the need for sacrifices. Are Jews then supposed to make the sacrifices under the Mosaic Law?

[JohnnyP]

I'm saying the prima facie context of Paul's statement of defense is the charge brought under him. Whether he is also responding to other charges not brought up in the court is something that you have yet to show.

So kinda like Paul was saying, "I believe in the Lawd and 10 Commandments!" as an insincere plea to the court?

Regardless, can you answer the question I asked, if these verses are related?

Acts 21:28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.

Acts 24:6 Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, and would have judged according to our law.

Why are Gentiles under the "relaxed" Mosaic Law, and not under the full law?

Because we have different stations. Jews take a vow to be God's chosen and an example for Gentiles, teachers of God to the world. Jesus being the leader of Jews as such. At this point the same is true, the 2 Olive Trees are Gentiles and Jews:

Revelation 11:4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.

Romans 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

There is still a distinction.

In Hebrews Jesus abrogated the need for sacrifices. Are Jews then supposed to make the sacrifices under the Mosaic Law?

Yep, as much as Gentiles can make sacrifices to Jesus under the Christmas Tree.

Hebrews 7:9-10 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.